1 |
On 2016-04-18 15:10, Kent Fredric wrote: |
2 |
> On 18 April 2016 at 23:44, Jonas Jelten <jj@××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
>> especially to dump bugzilla. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Dumping bugzilla at this time would be a regression really. "Lets just |
6 |
> discard millions of bugs and their history and important context" is |
7 |
> not really an option for a web accessible opensource project with lots |
8 |
> of inbound links, some of which are stashed in git commit messages, |
9 |
> and are essentially unfixable. |
10 |
|
11 |
I was more thinking of a migration so all tickets and all history is |
12 |
preserved of course. One could even implement a redirector that still |
13 |
accepts the bugzilla links but forwards to the migrated new ticket. |
14 |
|
15 |
> |
16 |
>> It provides a tightly coupled set of project management tools. https://phacility.com/phabricator/ |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I tend to find "tightly coupled" a synonym for "fragile" and "Inflexible". |
19 |
> |
20 |
> If there was a way for somebody to informally set up a phabricator |
21 |
> instance in a non-committal manner |
22 |
> that could be used merely for review purposes, that'd be nice. |
23 |
|
24 |
I'm pretty sure that works. As far as I understood the setup, one can |
25 |
disable any component without being fragile. I'm not sure what you mean |
26 |
by inflexible, I'm just guessing that each tool does what it promises |
27 |
and can interact with others nicely, and you just pick those you want. |
28 |
|
29 |
Of course the wiki/documentation module is not useable for us as we have |
30 |
the mediawiki. |
31 |
|
32 |
We can enable more and more components over time, starting with the code |
33 |
review thingy first if it works out. |
34 |
|
35 |
> |
36 |
> But "lets change to this cool new thing because its cool" is something |
37 |
> that doesn't resonate with me. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> To 'Change' It has to be _proven_ useful for our usecases, and |
40 |
> _proven_ to be _better_ than what we have, not dubious, tenuous and |
41 |
> relatively unknown. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> I'd want to be personally comfortable with using it before I ever |
44 |
> voted in favour of gentoo changing to it. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> And I'd expect all other devs to require that same high standard. |
47 |
|
48 |
Agree'd. The first step might be setting up an instance that can somehow |
49 |
sync all the status from ongoing work. Then people can play around and |
50 |
try whether it fits their workflows. |
51 |
However I'm not sure how comfortable and easy this is to accomplish. |
52 |
|
53 |
> |
54 |
> Also: I Hold defacto reservations about anything written in PHP, due |
55 |
> to both personal history with PHP, and the significant number of PHP |
56 |
> projects with both atrocious code and glaring security defects. |
57 |
|
58 |
That is a point, not sure if bugzilla does any better though ;) |
59 |
Still, I can't say how good their code is, I've just used the result and |
60 |
it was impressing. |
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
> |
64 |
> So I would want to be sure that not only is it better than what we |
65 |
> have, but it is _at least_ as secure as what we have, and I'd want to |
66 |
> be assured that the development team of Phabricator are competent and |
67 |
> its not just yet-another-fly-by-night product. |
68 |
|
69 |
If blender and wikimedia switched to it, it might actually have some |
70 |
benefits. Which should not mean we follow blindly, but we should |
71 |
consider its usability bonus. |
72 |
|
73 |
> |
74 |
> |
75 |
>> Migrating would contradict the apparent goal of integrating github more tightly, |
76 |
> |
77 |
> I have no idea where this "apparent goal" came from: "tight" github |
78 |
> integration is not and has never been "on the table". |
79 |
> |
80 |
> Github is purely a voluntary auxiliary process intended to allow |
81 |
> people to augment their workflow in semi-useful ways, and then, some |
82 |
> of the things github provides is harmful ( Githubs inability to handle |
83 |
> rebased pulls makes people do horrible long merge commits ) |
84 |
> |
85 |
> Its been repeatedly stated that Github must never be "Relied upon" in |
86 |
> a mandatory way, because it is inherently proprietary and usurps all |
87 |
> the authority that Gentoo infra have, and puts the Gentoo organisation |
88 |
> at Githubs mercy, and this would be entirely unconscionable as the |
89 |
> "only pathway". |
90 |
> |
91 |
|
92 |
I'm fully aware of that, what I'm trying to say is that many of github's |
93 |
features are present in phabricator, which would make us more |
94 |
independent again. Which does not mean I hate github and wanna leave it |
95 |
etc, just that phabricator can give us another, self-hosted contribution |
96 |
plattform. |